390 
The use of the term entergogenesis makes it practicable to in- 
dicate the essential distinction existing between the modifications 
produced through the mediation of internal forces and those arising 
as the direct results of the action of external forces by means of 
the term ectergogenesis and ectergogenic. 
These explanatory remarks serve to show that Ctetology is a 
branch of research which needs to be isolated from researches upon 
growth and Genesiology, since it is devoted to the study of the ori- 
gin of acquired characteristics, and therefore necessarily considers 
all of the internal reactions of the organisms in response to the ac- 
tion of physical forces, as well as the more obscure reactions of 
structures which are produced solely by (or supposed to be produced 
by) the direct physical or chemical action of external physical 
forces. 
BIOPLASTOLOGY. 
The separation of Auxology or Bathmology, Genesiology and 
Ctetology show also that the study of the correlations of ontogeny 
and phylogeny to be distinct from either of these, and this branch 
of research can be designated by the term Bioplastology from 
Bios, life, and /IAacz6s, meaning molded or formed.* 
To sum up in a few words the rather ambitious aims of this com- 
paratively new recruit in the army of investigation, it aspires to 
show that the phenomena of individual life are parallel with those 
of its own phylum and that both follow the same law of morpho- 
* Bioplasm, bioplast, bioplastic have already been used by Beale and others for the liv- 
ing cell and its contents, but the term “ Bioplastology ’’ has not been used, nor have the 
names proposed by Beale been generally adopted. If they were, Bioplasmology would 
cover the requirements of students of such phenomena, and there is already in use Plas- 
mology with about the same meaning, and Histology for the descriptive side of the study 
of cellular structures. 
Biogeny has been used in extra scientific literature by Fiske with the same meaning as 
Bioplastology, and Haeckel has named the law of embryonic and ancestral correlation 
the law of biogenesis, but there is a strong objection to both of these. Biogenesis is the 
name giyen to the theory of the origin or genesis of life from life in contradistinetion 
to the assumption of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis and has a well-established 
place in scientific literature. Therefore, while the law of correlation of the stages of 
development and those of the evolution of the phylum may, if one chooses, be called a 
law of biogenesis, it is more accurate to consider it a law of correlation in Bioplastology, 
or better still, the law of palingenesis or regular repetition of ancestral characters which 
very nearly expresses what the discoverer, Louis Agassiz, saw and described. The fact 
that Agassiz was wrong in his theory, not believing in evolution and not recognizing 
the meaning of his law in this sense, does not absolve those who profit by his labors from 
recognizing his discovery of the facts and his obviously full acquaintance with the law 
andits applications to the explanation of the relations of organisms. It is Agassiz’ law, 
not Haeckel’s. 
